Loudzoo
- 43
- 0
Thats my simple question!
Loudzoo said:IR does not penetrate below 1cm
... not "wrong," into a "semantic ditch," perhaps. If you're going to give me all the solar radiation that penetrates further than 1 mm by the Kebes plot (shorter than 2 μm), you've given me 80 - 90% of the IR. If you define IR as only that radiation that is absorbed in 1 mm or less, and ignore the 0.8 - 2 μm gap between visible and IR acknowledged by a specific argument, you're losing a lot of energy.Loudzoo said:Where am I going
What is "back radiation?"Loudzoo said:Can an increase in Atmospheric back radiation
Not being "flip" with you --- just wanted to be sure we're both working from the same initial set of ideas/postulates/principles.Loudzoo said:Heat moves from hot to cold obviously.
Welcome to the wonderful world of energy "balances" in non-equilibrium systems. The system we're "analyzing" (hah!) has as heat sources the sun, ~ 10-4steradians at ~ 5800 K or 1-1.3 kW/m2 at Earth surface, and crustal heat leak of 10-30 mW/m2, negligible. The heat sink is 4π steradians at ~ 4 K, the CMB. What else do we know? Some fraction of incident solar radiation is reflected, what fraction is subject to some uncertainty; some fraction is transmitted, very small through the atmospheric "halo", but enough to illuminate an otherwise totally eclipsed moon; and, some fraction is absorbed by atmo-, hydro-, and lithospheres, exchanged by conduction, convection, and radiation, and radiated to the CMB.Loudzoo said:And quite frankly I'm confused!
Loudzoo said:I understand the popular theory well enough but I don't understand the physical process of how additional CO2 in the atmosphere can lead to higher ocean temperatures. Can you help me?
This (the 3 C out of 33 C differential) appears to be the "first/principle/primary" postulate from which the argument is developed, and bothers me no end. The 33 C total greenhouse effect is the difference between a "global mean temperature" which can be called a real measurement, and a hypothetical "gray body" radiation steady state temperature, neither of which are presented with any uncertainties that I've seen (haven't done a global search, but am not used to having to do other peoples' error analyses). Dissections into contributions from various mechanisms, either as actual heat fluxes, or ΔT values, have likewise been less than transparent to me regarding methods and uncertainties.Loudzoo said:Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the Earth's atmosphere would be some 33C cooler on average. Approx 3C of that can be attributed to CO2 at current concentrations.
Loudzoo said:An increase in CO2 atmospheric concentrations will increase IR radiation in the atmosphere and as a result will increase downward IR radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth's surface. Where this "extra" CO2 strikes land it will warm the surface, increase convection, conduction and radiation increasing surface atmospheric temperatures.
As we've already touched on - where the "extra" downward IR strikes the ocean the effect is much less clear. Does the "extra" energy mainly increase evaporation rates or does it lead to increased temperatures in the water column?
Drakkith said:As far as I know the increased evaporation rates are due to the increase in temperature, so you can't have one without the other.
Loudzoo said:but atmospheric radiation only heats the top few molecules./QUOTE]
The top mmm or meters . That is a lot more than the thickness of a water molecule.
my2cts said:This does not mean the ocean temperature rises since so many other mechanisms are involved.
Loudzoo said:Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the Earth's atmosphere would be some 33C cooler on average.
my2cts said:You need to do really good measurements, easier said than done, or run a really good model.
Loudzoo said:As a human being I'd love to think CAGW is bunk because otherwise we're in serious danger.
Vapor pressure is a function of temperature. Evaporation rate is a function of heat transport to the phase interface and of material transport from the interface.Drakkith said:As far as I know the increased evaporation rates are due to the increase in temperature,
That's what we're trying to pin down.my2cts said:many other mechanisms are involved
These are what we're trying to identify.my2cts said:good measurements
(ditto)PeterDonis said:good measurements.
"... could be significantly affecting the climate ..." Yes. At the moment, we're trying to pin down what's been measured, and how well, rather than what probably needs to be examined in detail.PeterDonis said:other human activities besides CO2 emissions could be significantly affecting the climate (my personal candidate is land use--we have drastically changed the land surface of the planet); we don't know which ones, or how big their effect is. So the common "skeptic" argument that, since CAGW is bunk, there's nothing to worry about, is not a valid argument.